AMERICAN INT'L: Dismissal of Class in "Partington" Suit Upheld--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Appeals Court for the Fourth Circuit tackled the issueof default judgments in class actions in its opinion on ReverendDavid Partington's appeal of a case against certain insurers,Robert Loblaw of http://appellatedecisions.blogspot.com/reports.

The appeal addresses an interesting civil procedure question.When a defendant fails to file an answer to a complaint, theplaintiff may move for a default judgment. If the Court grantsa default judgment, this means that all of the allegations ofthe complaint are accepted as true. The appeal though questionswhether this applies to complaints that are filed as classactions.

According to the court opinion, the Reverend David Partingtonand fourteen others (Appellants) appealed the decision of theU.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina todismiss their case against American International Specialty andothers under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In priorlitigation, Rev. Partington obtained a default judgment againstCharterhouse Group, Ltd. in favor of himself and a class ofsimilarly situated persons.

Appellants seek to use the default judgment to stand in theplace of Charterhouse to seek damages from Charterhouse'sinsurers, American International Specialty Lines InsuranceCompany and AIG Technical Services, Inc. (Insurers). The NorthCarolina district court reasoned that the Appellants had failedto state a claim upon which relief could be granted because theproffered default judgment was:

(1) void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and

(2) unenforceable in that it awarded damages to an uncertified putative class.

The Fourth circuit though concluded that the district courterred in holding the default judgment void. In addition, itheld that although the judgment is unenforceable with respect tothe putative class members, Rev. Partington himself has a validjudgment in his favor.

Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal with respect tothe plaintiffs other than Rev. Partington, but vacate thedismissal and remand with respect to Rev. Partington'sindividual claim.

Basically, the Fourth Circuit holds that notwithstanding adefault judgment, the district court must make an independentdetermination about whether the case should be certified as aclass action. In so holding, the Fourth Circuit joins theSeventh Circuit, which is the only other court of appeal thathas addressed this issue directly.

AMERICAN INVESTORS: Court Approves Annuity Holders' Settlement--------------------------------------------------------------The Superior Court of the State of California for the County ofSan Luis Obispo has approved the settlement of a purported classaction styled, "Cheves v. American Investors Life InsuranceCompany, Family First Estate Planning and Family First InsuranceServices, et al." The settlement involves a statewide class ofannuity holders and purchasers of estate planning services.

The allegations in this case involved claims of breach ofcontract, misrepresentation, unfair competition and deceptivetrade practices. Given the charges previously taken regardingthis matter, the company does not anticipate that any additionalcharges will be required as a result of this settlement.

On September 23, 2005, the trial court preliminarily approvedthe general terms of a settlement of a statewide class action.A hearing on the final approval was held in November 2005,(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 1, 2005).

AMERUS GROUP: Consumer Fraud Lawsuits Consolidated in E.D. Pa.--------------------------------------------------------------Several consumer fraud class actions against AmerUs Group Co.and certain of its subsidiaries were transferred to the U.S.District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

These nationwide federal class actions were filed on behalf ofcertain purchasers of the company's products:

Court Date of Filing

Central District of California April 7, 2005District of Kansas April 25, 2005Eastern District of Pennsylvania May 19, 2005Middle District of Florida August 29, 2005Eastern District of Pennsylvania November 8, 2005Eastern District of Pennsylvania December 8, 2005

On July 7, 2005 a statewide class action was also filed onbehalf of certain purchasers of the company's products in theU.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida againstmany of these same AmerUs entities.

The lawsuits relate to the use of purportedly inappropriatesales practices and products in the senior citizen market. Theyallege, among other things, the unauthorized practice of lawinvolving the marketing of estate or financial planningservices, the lack of suitability of the products, the impropermanner in which they were sold, including pretext sales and non-disclosure of surrender charges, as well as other violations ofthe state consumer and insurance laws.

In November 2005, each of the aforementioned lawsuits as well ascertain other statewide class actions and individual lawsuitswere assigned to the U.S. District Court for the EasternDistrict of Pennsylvania for coordinated and consolidatedpretrial proceedings.

ARBINET-THEXCHANGE INC: Faces Consolidated Stock Suit in N.J.-------------------------------------------------------------An amended complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court forthe District of New Jersey in the consolidated securities classaction against Arbinet-thexchange, Inc.

Between August 11, 2005 and September 26, 2005, the company wasnamed defendant in four purported securities class actions thatwere filed in state and federal courts in New Jersey against thecompany and certain of its officers, current and formerdirectors and the underwriters for its initial public offering.The suits were styled:

On September 27, 2005 defendants removed the Crowell action toU.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, where it hasbeen docketed as "Jonathan Crowell v. Arbinet-thexchange, Inc.,et al., C.A. No. 05-CV-4697."

These lawsuits alleged violations of the registration and anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws due to allegedstatements in and omissions from the company 's initial publicoffering registration statement, as well as statements made bythe company following the IPO. The complaints sought, amongother things, unspecified damages and costs associated with thelitigation.

On December 6, 2005, Sandra Schwartz was appointed leadplaintiff in the class action securities litigation. Theseparate securities class actions that were filed in the federalcourts in New Jersey were consolidated into the action entitled,"In re Arbinet-thexchange, Inc. Securities Litigation, C.A. No.05-CV-04444-JLL_RJH (D. N.J.)"

On February 17, 2006, the consolidated and amended complaint wasfiled with the court. The amended complaint continued to allegeviolations of the registration and anti-fraud provisions of thefederal securities laws due to alleged statements in andomissions from the company's initial public offeringregistration statement. The amended complaint sought, amongother things, unspecified damages and costs associated with thelitigation.

BIOMEDICAL TISSUE: Faces New Suit Over Body Parts Harvesting------------------------------------------------------------ Nine families in Rochester, New York are filing a class actionagainst Biomedical Tissue Services Ltd., and three funeral homesover allegations the firms may have illegally harvested bodyparts from dead relatives.

One of the plaintiffs is Jill Wirth, whose mother was crematedat the Thomas E. Burger Funeral Home in Hilton. She isrepresented by Van Henri White. The suit also names ProfettaFuneral Chapel, and Serenity Hills Funeral Home as defendants.

Two of the defendants, Michael Mastromarino and Joseph Nicelliof Biomedical Tissue, were recently charged in State SupremeCourt in Brooklyn, New York, for operating a corrupt $4.6million enterprise to harvest human tissue from funeral homesand sell it for use in transplants and research. Hospitalsacross North America have reported receipt of the illegallyharvested and potentially dangerous tissue.

Customers who paid the fee between June 1, 2002, and May 31,2003 will be entitled to receive a $30 refund, according to theproposed settlement filed by the San Francisco-based discountbrokerage with the court.

Charles Schwab -- http://www.schwab.com-- serves more than 7 million individual and institutional clients from approximately270 offices in the U.S. Traders can access its services viatelephone, wireless device, and the Internet. Besides discountbrokerage, the firm offers mutual funds, annuities, privatebanking, and bond trading, as well as mortgages through itsCharles Schwab Bank.

CHOICEPOINT INC: Continues to Face Calif. FCRA Violations Suits---------------------------------------------------------------ChoicePoint, Inc. is a defendant in two purported class actions,which allege violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)and certain state statutes. One suit was filed in Californiafederal court; another in Georgia, but was later transferred toCalifornia.

The first suit, styled the "Harrington, et al. v. ChoicePoint,CV05-1294," resulted from the consolidation of four previouslyfiled class actions in the U.S. District Court for the CentralDistrict of California.

On June 30, 2005, plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidatedclass action complaint against the company and threesubsidiaries. The amended complaint alleged violations of theFCRA and certain California statutes.

The plaintiffs purported to bring the lawsuit on behalf of anational class of persons about whom the company provided aconsumer report as defined in the FCRA to rogue customers, aswell as five California classes of affected persons. Plaintiffssought actual, statutory and exemplary damages and injunctiverelief, attorneys' fees and costs.

On September 15, 2005, the Court dismissed with prejudice twocounts related to certain California statutes and let survivethe other claims. The company filed a motion for summaryjudgment, which was denied without prejudice on March 1, 2006.At the conclusion of four months of discovery, the court statedthe company could renew its motion.

On June 15, 2005, a similar purported class action was filedagainst the company in the U.S. District Court, NorthernDistrict of Georgia, Atlanta Division, styled, "Wilson v.ChoicePoint Inc., 1-05-CV-1604."

The plaintiffs alleged violations of the FCRA, the Driver'sPrivacy Protection Act (DPPA), and Georgia's Uniform DeceptiveTrade Practices Act and purport to represent a national class ofpersons whose consumer credit reports as defined in the FCRA orpersonal or highly restricted personal information as defined inthe DPPA was disclosed to third parties as a result of acts oromissions by the company. Plaintiffs sought actual, statutory,and punitive damages, injunctive relief and fees and costs.

On February 28, 2006, the Court granted the company's motion totransfer the Wilson case to the U.S. District Court for theCentral District of California.

CHOICEPOINT INC: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Suit in Ga.---------------------------------------------------------------ChoicePoint, Inc. is a defendant in a purported class action inthe U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income SecurityAct (ERISA).

On May 20, 2005, the class action was filed against the companyand certain individuals who are alleged to be fiduciaries underthe ChoicePoint Inc. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (Plan).

The suit alleged violations of ERISA fiduciary rules through theacquisition and retention of ChoicePoint stock by the Plan onand after November 24, 2004. Plaintiffs sought compensatorydamages, injunctive and equitable relief, attorneys' fees andcosts.

The suit was styled, "Mellot v. ChoicePoint Inc., et al., CaseNo. 1:05-cv-01340-JTC," filed in the U.S. District Court for theNorthern District of Georgia under Judge Jack T. Camp.Representing the plaintiffs are:

CHOICEPOINT INC: Continues to Face Ga. Consolidated Stock Suit--------------------------------------------------------------ChoicePoint, Inc. is a defendant in a consolidated securitiesclass action in the U.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Georgia.

On March 4, 2005, a purchaser of the company's securities fileda lawsuit against the company and certain of its officers in theU.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Thecomplaint alleged that the defendants violated federalsecurities laws by issuing false or misleading information inconnection with the fraudulent data access.

Additional similar complaints were filed by other purchasers ofthe company's securities in the U.S. District Court for theCentral District of California on March 10, 2005 and in theNorthern District of Georgia on March 11, 2005, March 22, 2005and March 24, 2005.

By court order, the cases pending in the California weretransferred to the Northern District of Georgia. By order datedAugust 5, 2005, the court consolidated each of the pending casesinto a single consolidated action, captioned, "In re ChoicePointInc. Securities Litigation, 1:05-CV-00686."

On November 14, 2005, the court entered an order appointing theAlaska Laborers Employers Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff forthe proposed plaintiff class.

A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on January 13, 2006,seeking certification as a class action and unspecifiedcompensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and other relief.

The suit was styled, "In re ChoicePoint Inc. SecuritiesLitigation, 1:05-CV-00686," filed in the U.S. District Court forthe Northern District of Georgia under Judge Jack T. Camp.Representing the plaintiffs are:

CHOICEPOINT INC: Fla. Court Mulls Motion to Re-Open Privacy Suit----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida hasyet to rule on plaintiffs' motion to re-open a class actionfiled against ChoicePoint, Inc.

The suit alleged that the company obtained, disclosed and usedinformation acquired from the Florida Department of HighwaySafety and Motor Vehicles (Florida DHSMV) in violation of thefederal Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA). The plaintiffssought to represent classes of individuals whose personalinformation from Florida DHSMV records has been obtained,disclosed and used for marketing purposes or other allegedlyimpermissible uses by the company without the express writtenconsent of the individual.

A number of the company's competitors were also sued in the sameor similar litigation in Florida. This complaint soughtcertification as a class action, compensatory damages,attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive and other relief.

The company has filed a motion for summary judgment and hasjoined in a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On March 8,2005, the court administratively closed the Fresco action untilthe 11th Circuit rules on a dispositive DPPA issue in anothercase.

On March 16, 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion to re-open thecase, which the company and the other defendants opposed. Themotion was heard on July 21, 2005 and has been taken underadvisement by the court.

The suit is styled, "Richard Fresco, et al. v. AutomotiveDirections, Inc., et al., Case No. CIV-03-61063-Martinez/Klein,"filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District ofFlorida.

Filed on June 13, 2002, the suit alleged the company violatedIllinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act by sellinginformation that it received from insurance agent customersthrough underwriting inquiries as leads (names of individualsseeking insurance) for automobile and homeowner's insurance tothose same insurance agent customers as well as theircompetitors.

The complaint sought certification as a class action,compensatory damages, attorney's fees and costs and injunctiveand other relief.

Though the company denies any and all charges of wrongdoing orliability alleged by the plaintiffs, it believes that it is inthe best interest of the company, the shareholders, and thecompany's customers to settle this matter. Therefore, thecompany entered a settlement agreement in this action, whichwill be filed with and is subject to court approval after afairness hearing.

The court approved the settlement after a fairness hearing heldon October 17, 2005. Upon expiration of the period for appeal,and pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, onNovember 23, 2005, the company established a cash fund for thebenefit of qualifying class members, the payouts from whichcould total up to $7,000,000.

The company is also funding redeemable certificates of value toqualifying class members that may be used to obtain certaindirect marketing services. The aggregate value of theredeemable certificates available to qualifying class memberscould total as much as $7,000,000.

In addition, the company also paid $500,000 in cy pres funds,$2,950,000 toward plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, costs andexpenses, settlement administration costs, and an aggregate sumof $10,000 to the named plaintiffs. Its December 31, 2005balance sheet included a liability for the currently estimatedfees and expenses in connection with the resolution of thismatter.

C&S WHOLESALE: Workers Launch $750M N.Y. Suit Over Unpaid Wages---------------------------------------------------------------Four C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. employees filed a nationwideclass action in the U.S. District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York alleging that their employer is routinelycheating thousands of its piece-rate warehouse workers out ofmillions of dollars a week in wages.

The workers seek $750 million from C&S in unpaid wages andovertime under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and statelabor laws in each of the 14 states where the company operateswarehouses, including a 500,000 square-foot facility inNewburgh, New York, where the plaintiffs worked.

The case applies to workers who have been employed by C&S since2000. The suit details how the second largest wholesale grocerystore supplier in the U.S., violates federal and state laws by:

(1) illegally chopping workers' wages as punishment for mistakes on the job;

(2) failing to pay overtime;

(3) failing to pay for time worked in excess of 10 hours;

(4) failing to pay employees their agreed hourly rates; and

(5) encouraging employees to work off-the-clock and through lunch without pay.

"To make matters worse," explains Steven Wittels of SanfordWittels & Heisler, lead counsel for the workers, "C&S punishesan entire team of workers for one person's mistake. C&Semployees work in 4-8 member 'selection' teams. If one teammember makes an error, for example selecting a case of applejuice instead of grape juice, C&S collectively punishes everyoneon that team and cuts their pay."

According to the company's website, C&S has more than 20,000employees and operates over 50 warehouses in New York, NewJersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,Vermont, Ohio, Maryland, South Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama,California and Hawaii. The warehouses have a storage capacityin excess of 15 million square feet.

"C&S is punishing its low-income workers at the same time thecompany is projecting record revenues of $18 billion this year,"said Jeremy Heisler, co-lead counsel in the case. "Meanwhile,the hard-working employee making those profits possible haslittle choice but to keep quiet about the company's sweatshoppractices or lose his job."

The plaintiffs' legal team notes that although C&S makes itsemployees carry ID cards announcing that its warehouses arestaffed by "Braggingly Happy Team Members," quite the oppositeis true. "C&S warehouse team members go to work not knowing howmuch they will earn because of hourly wage deductions that occurat the whim of supervisors," said Mr. Heisler.

"Such underhanded labor tactics are not exactly a recipe forworker satisfaction," adds Mr. Wittels. "The only team braggingabout 'happiness' is management, which is boosting profits onthe backs of its illegally-underpaid workforce."

Community advocate Javier Andrade, who has been active in OrangeCounty, New York where these four plaintiffs work, observes thatminority employees, who comprise the bulk of the company'sworkforce, bear the brunt of C&S' unfair and rampant laborpractices.

"C&S and other big companies like it need a loud wake-up call,"suggests Mr. Andrade. "C&S makes large profits exploiting itswarehouse workers, most of whom are Latino and African American.This lawsuit sends a message that C&S can't get away withbusiness as usual, and can't trample on the rights of itsemployees."

The four New York plaintiffs, Armando Hernandez, Michael Wands,Michael Rodrigues and Joseph Alvarez, seek class certificationfor all C&S "piece-rate incentive warehouse employees" underRule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and similar lawsin each of the 14 states where C&S warehouses are located.

The grocery supplier boasts on its Web site that the "qualitybonus" it pays workers instills high morale on the warehousefloor. According to plaintiff Michael Wands, however, the only"bonuses" the company hands out are on the order of a companymug or key chain.

"A $3 carnival trinket is not exactly your typical moralebooster," remarks class counsel Mr. Wittels. "Unless this caseis certified as a class action," he adds, "this grocery behemothwill continue its unlawful labor practices with impunity.Unfortunately, that would help C&S fill its coffers even more atthe expense of workers."

On the current company website, C&S touts its piece-rateincentive program as a "huge success," crowing that within sixmonths of the program's implementation the company increasedtotal volume shipped by 35%, while decreasing labor costs bymore than 20%. But it is precisely the company's illegal wage-cutting, explains Mr. Andrade, that led to the lower laborcosts.

The suit maintains that C&S owes thousands of dollars to eachplaintiff and the other class members -- which include thecompany's warehouse selectors, lift operators, backhaulers andslot cleaners. In addition to back pay and overtimecompensation, the class action asks for punitive damages,prejudgment interest, attorney's fees, costs and otherrestitution.

The plaintiffs' legal team, comprised of Steven Wittels, JeremyHeisler, David Sanford and Janette Wipper, has requested a jurytrial.

DIGITAS INC: IPO Settlement Hearing Slated for April 24, 2006-------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New Yorkset an April 24, 2006 fairness hearing for the proposedsettlement of stockholder class actions against Digitas, Inc.

Between June 26, 2001 and August 16, 2001, several stockholderclass action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Courtfor the Southern District of New York against the company,several of its officers and directors, and five underwriters ofits initial public offering (the Offering/IPO). The purportedclass actions were all brought on behalf of purchasers ofDigitas Inc.'s common stock between March 13, 2000, the date ofthe Offering, and December 6, 2000.

The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the company'sprospectus, incorporated in the Registration Statement on FormS-1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, wasmaterially false and misleading because it failed to disclosethat the underwriters had engaged in conduct designed to resultin undisclosed and excessive underwriters' compensation in theform of increased brokerage commissions and also that thisalleged conduct of the underwriters artificially inflated thecompany's stock price in the period after the Offering.

The plaintiffs claimed violations of Section 11 of theSecurities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder bythe Securities and Exchange Commission and seek, among otherthings, damages, statutory compensation and costs of litigation.Effective October 9, 2002, the claims against the company'sofficers and directors were dismissed without prejudice.

Effective February 19, 2003, the Section 10(b) claims againstthe company were dismissed. The terms of a settlement have beententatively reached between the plaintiffs in the suits and mostof the defendants, including the company, with respect to theremaining claims.

A court hearing on the fairness of the proposed settlement tothe plaintiff class is scheduled for April 24, 2006. If thecourt approves the settlement, the settlement would resolvethose claims against the company and is expected to result in nomaterial liability to it.

FAIRPOINT COMMUNICATIONS: N.C. Court Mulls Motions in "Lowinger"----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Western District of NorthCarolina has yet to rule on either motion to remand or todismiss the class action against Fairpoint Communications, Inc.,styled, "Lowinger v. Johnson, et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-00316."

On June 6, 2005, a purported class action complaint was filed inthe General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, of theState of North Carolina by Robert Lowinger on behalf of himselfand all other similarly situated persons against the company,the company's chairman and chief executive officer, certain ofthe company's current and former directors and certain of thecompany's stockholders.

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) andliability under Section 15 of the Securities Act. It alsoalleged that the company's registration statement on Form S-1(which was declared effective by the SEC on February 3, 2005)and the related prospectus dated February 3, 2005, each relatingto the company 's initial public offering of common stock,contained certain material misstatements and omitted certainmaterial information necessary to be included relating to thecompany 's broadband products and access line trends.

The plaintiff, who has been a plaintiff in several othersecurities cases, sought rescission rights and unspecifieddamages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of thecommon stock "issued pursuant and/or traceable to the company'sIPO during the period from February 3, 2005 through March 21,2005."

The company removed the action to the U.S. District Court forthe Western District of North Carolina. The plaintiff filed amotion to remand the action to the North Carolina State Court,which was denied by the Federal Magistrate. The plaintiffobjected to and appealed the Magistrate's decision to theDistrict Court Judge.

The company contested the appeal and filed a motion to dismissthe action. The Magistrate, on February 9, 2006, issued aMemorandum and Recommendation to the District Court Judge thatthe motion to dismiss be granted and that the complaint bedismissed with prejudice.

The plaintiff has filed a Notice of Objection to theMagistrate's Recommendation. Both the appeal of denial of themotion to remand and the motion to dismiss are pending beforethe District Court Judge.

GENERAL MOTORS: Settles N.J. Minority Dealers' Racial Bias Suit--------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Corp. reached settlements with two former dealerswho sued the company over allegations its dealer program isdeceptive and discriminatory, according to Automotive News.

The suit was filed in a New Jersey federal court in February2005 by Ricardo Sanchez, a Mexican-American and Chandler Lee,who is black. Originally, the case also included plaintiffsJames Dalton and Theldon Branch, both black.

They accused General Motors of withholding information about thecompany's financial troubles, and of terminating more than 100minority dealers in previous years. The case failed to getclass status.

General Motors spokeswoman Deborah Silverman told AutomotiveNews in an e-mail message one plaintiff dropped the suit afterhis claims were dismissed by the court, the other withdrew afterreceiving counterclaims.

GETTY REALTY: Continues to Face MTBE Contamination Suit in N.Y.---------------------------------------------------------------Getty Realty Corp. is defendant in a purported class actionfiled in New York Supreme Court in Dutchess County, New York,arising out of alleged contamination of ground water with methyltertiary butyl ether, a fuel derived from methanol, which thecompany refers to as MTBE.

The company served an answer that denied liability and assertednumerous affirmative defenses. The plaintiffs have notresponded to the company's demands and there has not been anyactivity in the case for a considerable period.

Filed in December 2004, the suit alleged that the company,various specialist firms, broker-dealers and the American StockExchange violated common law and the securities laws by, amongother things, failing to execute limit orders for options atquoted prices and by executing market orders for options atprices less favorable than the actual market price. Theplaintiff sought unspecified monetary damages and injunctiverelief.

The company is seeking indemnification for this matter undercontractual arrangements with a third party, although there isno guarantee that it will be successful in obtaining suchindemnification.

On January 26, 2006, the court dismissed the case with prejudiceagainst the American Stock Exchange and without prejudiceagainst the remaining defendants.

LAKESIDE HEIGHTS: Patient Launches Negligence Lawsuit in Ky.------------------------------------------------------------A former patient at the Lakeside Heights Nursing Centerinitiated a purported class action against the nursing home inthe U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky,9News reports.

Filed on April 4, 2006, the suit alleges that former patientMelissa Atkins suffered from neglect and a lack of proper foodand medical care. Ms. Atkins' attorney, Paul Dickman wants thesuit declared a class action for all patients who were residentsof the Highland Heights, Kentucky since 2000.

State officials ordered the home's closure last month afterciting numerous deficiencies. Nursing home administrators arerefusing to comment on the suit.

LIBERTY GLOBAL: Faces Consolidated Suit in Del. Over UGC Merger---------------------------------------------------------------Liberty Global, Inc. was named defendant in a consolidated classaction in the Delaware Court of Chancery regarding theannouncement on January 18, 2005 of the execution byUnitedGlobalCom, Inc. and the company of the agreement and planof merger for the combination of the two companies under LibertyGlobal.

Since January 18, 2005, 21 lawsuits were filed in the DelawareCourt of Chancery, and one lawsuit was filed in the DenverDistrict Court, State of Colorado, all purportedly on behalf ofpublic stockholders. The defendants named in these actionsinclude UnitedGlobalCom and former directors of UnitedGlobalComand Liberty Global.

The allegations in each of the complaints, which weresubstantially similar, assert that the defendants have breachedtheir fiduciary duties of loyalty, care, good faith and candorand that various defendants have engaged in self-dealing andunjust enrichment, approved an unfair price, and impeded ordiscouraged other offers for UnitedGlobalCom or its assets inbad faith and for improper motives.

The complaints sought various remedies, including damages forthe public holders of UnitedGlobalCom's stock and an award ofattorney's fees to plaintiffs' counsel.

On February 11, 2005, the Delaware Court of Chanceryconsolidated all 21 Delaware lawsuits into a single action.Also, on April 20, 2005, the Denver District Court, State ofColorado, issued an order granting a joint stipulation for stayof the action filed in this court, pending the final resolutionof the consolidated action in Delaware.

On May 5, 2005, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action filed aconsolidated amended complaint containing allegationssubstantially similar to those found in, and naming the samedefendants named in, the original complaints.

The defendants filed their answers to the consolidated amendedcomplaint on September 30, 2005. The parties are proceedingwith pre-trial discovery activity.

LIBERTY NATIONAL: Ala. Judge Approves Policyholders' Settlement---------------------------------------------------------------Judge U.W. Clemon of the U.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Alabama approved a $6 million settlement of theclass action that accuses Liberty National Life Insurance ofcharging black policyholders higher premiums for burialinsurance, The Birmingham News reports.

Filed on December 8, 1999 by some DeKalb County residents, thesuit alleged that agents would market small value policies withpremium payments of less than $1, collected on a weekly ormonthly basis. Black policyholders paid 36 percent more inpremiums than a white person in similar circumstances, aplaintiffs' attorney pointed out.

In a Securities and Exchange Commission filing by TorchmarkCorp., the company's parent, the class consisted of about 2,000people who claim that their family members paid more forindustrial life insurance, or burial policies, than whitecustomers in similar circumstances.

The settlement resolves nearly "all class action issues in race-distinct pricing litigation at Liberty National," the companysaid in the filing. Torchmark spokeswoman Joyce Lane told TheBirmingham News that the company is "very pleased" that theissues are settled.

Additionally, the judge also ordered the company to pay $3.35million in attorney fees. Birmingham law firm Whatley Drakerepresented the class along with Huntsville law firm WatsonJimmerman Givham Martin & MicKinney.

MAINE: Plaintiffs Want County Jail Strip-Search Suit Broadened-------------------------------------------------------------- Lawyers for a Thomaston woman who is the lead plaintiff in asuit over alleged illegal strip-searching at Knoxx County Jailare asking the court to expand the case after a new complaintover the practice emerged.

The lawyers filed a motion late in March to have the proposedclass in the suit expanded to those booked through May 1, KnoxCounty's Village Soup reports. Originally, the class comprisedof inmates detained Nov. 19, 1996 to Dec. 21, 2004. Theplaintiff's motion stated that in the three years that the casewas litigated, defendants have denied any strip-searching of thedefendants, but insisted that the practice had stopped.However, it said, "regrettably," strip-searching continues.

Jennifer Collins of Rockland said in an affidavit she wassubjected to "degrading" strip searches at the jail on Jan. 16when she was detained on a warrant for felony theft by deceptionand misdemeanor misuse of identification. She claimed to havebeen strip-searched during initial booking, and after sheappeared in court for arraignment but prior to making bail.

The proposed class action was filed by Laurie Tardiff inDecember 2002 against the jail, jail personnel and Sheriff DanDavey. In November, Senior U.S. Justice Gene Carter cleared theway for a major class action against the county to continue inresponse to a motion for summary judgment brought by Ms.Tardiff. Trial in the case is set to start May pending JusticeCarter's decision on a key motion for reconsideration byattorneys for the county.

MERCK & CO: Jury Issues Split Ruling in Vioxx Liability Suit------------------------------------------------------------ A New Jersey jury came up with a split decision in a product-liability case of two former users of Merck & Co.'s painkillerdrug Vioxx, MarketWatch reports.

The state jury in Atlantic City on April 5 held Merck liable incausing the heart attack of plaintiffs John McDarby, butabsolved it in the case of Thomas Cona. It awarded Mr. McDarbyand his wife $4.5 million in combined compensatory damages.According to the report, local news said Mr. Cona was unable toproduce prescription records showing he took the drug for morethan seven months.

It also said Merck committed consumer fraud, awarding $3,969 onthat claim to Mr. McDarby and $45 to Mr. Cona, Bloomberg Newsreports. It will be tripled under state consumer law, thereport said. The jury found Merck violated consumer fraud lawby misleading physicians about the cardiovascular risks of Vioxxand concealing information from doctors about those risks. Itwill now be decided whether Merck should pay punitive damages,the report said.

The consolidated case was the first to go to trial involvinglong-term use of the drug. Merck claimed the drug is safe whenused for less than 18 months.

MIDWAY GAMES: Stockholder Lawsuits in Ill., Del. Dismissed----------------------------------------------------------Several putative class actions filed against Midway Games Inc.,Sumner M. Redstone and several of its directors in state courtsin Illinois and Delaware were recently dismissed.

In June 2004, four lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court ofCook County, Illinois. Two other lawsuits were filed in theCourt of Chancery for the State of Delaware in and for NewCastle County.

These six putative class actions were brought on behalf of allpersons, other than defendants, who own the company's securitiesand alleged, among other things, that the company and itsdirectors breached the company's and their fiduciary duties toits other stockholders by allowing Sumner M. Redstone topurchase a substantial amount of the company's common stock fromother stockholders.

The lawsuits sought injunctive relief to prevent Mr. Redstonefrom acquiring the company's remaining outstanding shares inorder to take the company private, imposition of a constructivetrust and other relief for the alleged breach of fiduciary duty.

On October 6, 2004, defendants filed motions to dismiss theseconsolidated actions, asserting that none of plaintiffs'allegations state a legally viable claim against any of thedefendants. On January 26, 2005, the motion was granted withprejudice with respect to the company and without prejudice withrespect to the individual defendants, and the plaintiffs weregranted leave to file an amended complaint by February 22, 2005.

The plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint by that date.On March 15, 2005, the consolidated actions were dismissed withprejudice as to all defendants.

Plaintiffs in the two Delaware class action complaints filed forand were granted dismissal on March 18, 2005 and May 5, 2005.

MODEM MEDIA: IPO Settlement Hearing Slated for April 24, 2006-------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New Yorkset an April 24, 2006 fairness hearing for the proposedsettlement of stockholder class actions against Modem Media,Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Digitas Inc.

Beginning in August 2001, several stockholder class actioncomplaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for theSouthern District of New York against the company, several ofits officers and directors, and five underwriters of its initialpublic offering. The purported class actions were all broughton behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock betweenFebruary 5, 1999, the date of the Modem Media Offering, andDecember 6, 2000.

The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the company'sprospectus, incorporated in the Registration Statement on FormS-1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, wasmaterially false and misleading because it failed to disclosethat the underwriters had engaged in conduct designed to resultin undisclosed and excessive underwriters' compensation in theform of increased brokerage commissions and also that thisalleged conduct of the underwriters artificially inflated thecompany's stock price in the period after the Modem MediaOffering.

The plaintiffs claimed violations of Sections 11 and 15 of theSecurities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgatedthereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission and sought,among other things, damages, statutory compensation and costs oflitigation.

The terms of a settlement have been tentatively reached betweenthe plaintiffs in the suits and most of the defendants,including the company. A court hearing on the fairness of theproposed settlement to the plaintiff class is scheduled forApril 24, 2006.

If the court approves the settlement, the settlement wouldresolve the claims against the company and the individualdefendants and is expected to result in no material liability toDigitas Inc.

MURPHY OIL: Launches Own Program to Pay La. Oil Spill Victims------------------------------------------------------------- Murphy Oil Corp. plans to continue settling claims of people whoopted out of a class action over an oil spill in Meraux,Louisiana, a company spokesman told the NWANews.

Their program continues despite a judge's order setting asidesettlement money for legal fees and costs. According toNWANews, U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon ordered that 12% ofthe gross of any settlements be set aside to cover suchexpenses. Of the amount, 10% would be for fees, and theremaining would be for costs. The order involves pending orfuture cases, and includes only people who have counsel.

Previously, Judge Fallon ruled that the terms of a class actionagainst Murphy Oil USA does not prevent homeowners from leavingthe suit and settling their own claims stemming from therefinery's oil spill after Hurricane Katrina, according to TheAssociated Press (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 15, 2006).

Case Consolidation

In January, Judge Fallon ordered the consolidation of at least27 lawsuits against Murphy Oil Co. in relation to the September2005 oil spill that originated from the company 's refinery inMeraux, Louisiana. In his order, the judge required thatparties to the consolidated cases prepare a "MasterAdministrative Complaint" (MAC) for convenience. The MACincluded all of the causes of action asserted in theconsolidated complaints, (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 25, 2006).

According to court documents, "the class will consist of allpersons and/or entities in the Parish of St. Bernard, State ofLouisiana, who/which have sustained injuries, loss, and/ordamages as a result of the September 2005 spill of what isestimated to be over 125,000 barrels or over 1 million gallonsof crude oil and other petroleum hydrocarbons, together withunknown components of those substances, from a storage tanklocated on the premises of the refinery owned and/or operated byDefendant, Murphy Oil, U.S.A., Inc. and or Murphy Oil Corp. inMeraux, Louisiana," (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 25, 2006).

However, in a ruling issued recently, the judge established aprocedure for homeowners who want to settle individually. Thejudge said that homeowners who do leave the suit would notreceive any benefits if the company loses.

Case Background

The lawsuits stemmed from a leak at the company 's site inMeraux that dumped more than 25,000 barrels of crude oil intonearby areas, including an estimated 18,000 homes, mostly inChalmette. Under the class action, other people who sustaineddamage caused by the oil spill may benefit from any settlementor judgment against company, even if they are not listed asparties in the 27 suits that were consolidated.

Hearing Date

Murphy appealed the certification of the suit as class action,but failed. Trial on the case is set to begin in New Orleans onAug. 14.

The company said one end of the leg extension cable can releasefrom the guide pulley and swing around, potentially striking theuser or bystander. Nautilus is aware of one incident in whichthe leg extension cable released, and one incident in which thesquat attachment cable became disengaged. No injuries have beenreported.

This recall involves the Bowflex Ultimate 2 home gym, which isan exercise machine equipped with pulleys, tension rods andother equipment to permit the user to select from among avariety of exercise routines. The name "Bowflex" and the modelname "Bowflex Ultimate 2" are on the front of the lat tower andthe sides of the main upright frame structure.

The exercise machines were made in China and sold at NautilusInc. through direct sales to consumers and through specialtyfitness retailers nationwide from June through December 2005 forabout $2,300.

Owners are being sent a free kit, including a pulley bracket anda cable retainer assembly. Each of these items can be easilyinstalled with a small tool that is included in the kit.Consumers are advised to stop using the leg extension, squatattachment or abdominal attachment until the kit is installed.

ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Tex. Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit-----------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas hasentered an order dismissing with prejudice all of the claimsagainst Odyssey Healthcare, Inc. and certain current and formerexecutive officers in the shareholder class action complaintfiled in April 2004 and later consolidated with other similarfederal lawsuits.

The court's opinion carefully examined each of the allegationsin the amended and consolidated complaint and determined thatthey stated no viable claim against any defendant. The courtalso denied plaintiffs' request to further amend theircomplaint.

"We are extremely pleased with the decision of the Court," saidRobert A. Lefton, President and Chief Executive Officer ofOdyssey. "We have always believed that plaintiffs' case lackedmerit, and we look forward to putting this issue behind us andmoving forward with our business initiatives."

In 2005, Odyssey Healthcare asked the court to dismiss theamended consolidated securities class action filed against it,certain of its current and former chief executive officers andits current chief financial officer.

Plaintiff Francis Layher filed the first suit, individually andon behalf of all others similarly situated, purportedly onbehalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired thecompany 's publicly traded securities between May 5, 2003 andFebruary 23, 2004. The complaint alleged violations of Sections10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiff sought an orderdetermining that the action may proceed as a class action,awarding compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiff and theother class members in an unspecified amount, and reasonablecosts and expenses incurred in the action, including counselfees and expert fees.

Six similar lawsuits were also filed in May and June of 2004 inthe U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas,Dallas Division, by plaintiffs Kenneth L. Friedman, Trudy J.Nomm, Eva S. Caldarola, Michael Schaufuss, Duane Liffrig andG.A. Allsmiller on behalf of the same plaintiff class, makingsubstantially similar allegations and seeking substantiallysimilar damages. The lawsuits have been transferred to a singlejudge and consolidated into a single action. Lead plaintiffsand lead counsel have been appointed. The consolidatedcomplaint was filed on December 20, 2004, which, among otherthings, extended the putative class period to October 18, 2005.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The districtcourt granted the company 's motion to dismiss on September 30,2005. The district court also granted lead plaintiffs the rightto amend their complaint. Lead plaintiffs filed an amendedconsolidated complaint on October 31, 2005.

The company and several former officers and/or directors of thecompany or its predecessor are defendants in a consolidatedclass action proceeding, alleging violations of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges, in summary, that the company failed todisclose:

(1) that vendor income had been improperly recorded,

(2) that the company lacked internal controls necessary to ensure the proper reporting of revenue and compliance with generally accepted accounting principles, and

(3) that the company 's 2004 and later results would be adversely affected by the company's allegedly improper practices.

The relief sought includes unspecified compensatory damages,interest and costs, including attorneys' fees. On September 21,2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidatedamended complaint, which is pending.

The suit is styled, "Roth v. Officemax Inc, et al., Case No.1:05-cv-00236," filed in the U.S. District Court for theNorthern District of Illinois under Judge Joan B. Gottschall.Representing the plaintiffs are William J. Doyle and William S.Lerach of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, 655West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619)231-1058.

OSSUR HF: Recalls Certain Models of Total Knee Prosthetic Device----------------------------------------------------------------Ossur hf. is recalling 1100, 1900, 2000 and 2100 models of itsTotal Knee prosthetic device worldwide. The company'sinitiation of the recall was based on a finding that some unitsof the Total Knee device may contain faulty pins based in theaxis of the knee.

There have been no incidents or injuries resulting from thissituation that have been reported to the company. The incidenceof actual product failures within the recalled knees is lessthan one percent (1%).

The serial numbers of the affected knees, which were orderedfrom June 7, 2005 to present, have been identified. The O&Pfacilities, which provided a Total Knee that contains theaffected serial number, will receive a letter and a phone callwith the proper replacement procedure in the next few days.

In addition, Ossur has temporarily suspended sales and shipmentsof Total Knees until further notice. To expedite this processin the consideration of both its customers and patients, theimplementation of a replacement program will be effectiveimmediately.

"We take the issue of patient safety very seriously," said JonSigurdsson, president and chief executive officer of Ossur. "Weinstituted this recall immediately, upon learning of the faultypins, because we believe that the patient's well-being is ourfirst priority. In addition, we are taking measures toguarantee the quality and safety of the replacement knees."

Ossur has informed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration andregulatory authorities in other countries of its decision toimplement this recall.

QC HOLDINGS: N.C. Court Stays Ruling on Arbitration Motion----------------------------------------------------------A ruling on QC Holdings, Inc.'s motion to enforce arbitration ina putative consumer fraud class action concerning theenforceability of the arbitration provision in the consumercontracts, which was filed in Superior Court of New HanoverCounty, will be put on hold pending the outcome of the appeal inthe three other similar North Carolina cases.

On February 8, 2005, the company, two of its subsidiaries,including its subsidiary doing business in North Carolina, andMr. Don Early, its chairman of the board and chief executiveofficer, were sued in Superior Court of New Hanover County,North Carolina in a putative class action filed by James B.Torrence, Sr. and Ben Hubert Cline, who were customers of aDelaware state-chartered bank for whom the company providedcertain services in connection with the bank's origination ofpayday loans in North Carolina, prior to the closing of thecompany's North Carolina branches in fourth quarter 2005.

The lawsuit alleged that the company violated various NorthCarolina laws, including the North Carolina Consumer FinanceAct, the North Carolina Check Cashers Act, the North CarolinaLoan Brokers Act, the state unfair trade practices statute andthe state usury statute, in connection with payday loans made bythe bank to the two plaintiffs through the company's retaillocations in North Carolina.

It also alleged that the company made the payday loans to theplaintiffs in violation of various state statutes, and that ifthe company is not viewed as the "actual lenders or makers" ofthe payday loans, the company's services to the bank that madethe loans violated various North Carolina statutes.

Plaintiffs are seeking certification as a class, unspecifiedmonetary damages, and treble damages and attorneys fees underspecified North Carolina statutes. They have not sued the bankin this matter and have specifically stated in the complaintthat plaintiffs do not challenge the right of out-of-state banksto enter into loans with North Carolina residents at such ratesas the bank's home state may permit, all as authorized by NorthCarolina and federal law. This case is in the preliminarystages.

There are three similar purported class actions filed in NorthCarolina against Advance America and two other companiesunrelated to the company. In December 2005, the judge in thosecases:

(1) granted the defendants' motions to stay the purported class actions and to compel arbitration in accordance with the terms of the arbitration provisions contained in the consumer loan contracts;

(2) ruled that the class action waivers in those consumer loan contracts are valid; and

(3) denied plaintiffs' motions for class certifications.

The plaintiffs in those three cases, who are represented by thesame law firms as the plaintiffs in the case filed against thecompany' have appealed that ruling. The judge handling thelawsuit against the company in North Carolina is the same judgewho issued these three orders in December.

The company has not had a ruling on the similar pending motionsby the plaintiffs and the company in its North Carolina case.There is a stay in the North Carolina lawsuit, pending theoutcome of the appeal in the other three North Carolina casesconcerning the enforceability of the arbitration provision inthe consumer contracts.

Accordingly, there will be no ruling on the company's motion toenforce arbitration in North Carolina during the pendency ofthat appeal. There can be no assurance that the company willreceive a similar ruling in its case.

QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Retirement Fund Opts Out of Settlement------------------------------------------------------------ A pension fund representing New York schoolteachers is optingout of a proposed $400 million settlement of a securities suitagainst Qwest Communications International, Inc., reports say.The New York State Teachers' Retirement System has informed adistrict court of its intention to do so, according to Reuters.

Qwest shareholders sued the company and 12 current and formerofficers and directors, including several large pension funds,after the company restated in 2002 $2.2 billion in revenue forthe previous two years. Qwest stock dropped from a high of $64per share to below $2 after the revelation. A fifthconsolidated amended class action complaint names ArthurAndersen LLP as defendant in the securities suit. A May hearinghas been set to review the proposed settlement.

Former Chief Executive Joseph Nacchio Nachio was indicted by afederal grand jury in Denver in December on 42 counts of insidertrading, which he denied to have committed.

SIPEX CORP: Calif. Court Approves $6M Settlement of Stock Suit-------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,San Francisco, approved the settlement of a shareholder classaction pending against Sipex Corp. and a former officer. The $6million settlement will be entirely funded by directors' andofficers' insurance policy proceeds.

"We are very pleased to put this matter behind the company withminimal financial impact," said Sipex CEO Ralph Schmitt. "Wecontinue to improve our governance and financial systems andcontrols, and look forward to now focusing on executing ourstrategic plans and building value for our shareholders,customers, and employees."

The action was entitled "In re Sipex Corp. Sec. Litig., 05-CV-00392-WHA." It was brought on behalf of Sipex investors whosuffered losses in connection with their purchase of Sipexshares between April 10, 2003 and Jan. 20, 2005.

SONUS NETWORKS: Faces New Securities Fraud Complaint in Mass.-------------------------------------------------------------Sonus Networks, Inc., is a defendant in a purported securitiessuit in the U.S. District Court for the District ofMassachusetts.

On January 6, 2006, a purchaser of the company's common stockfiled the complaint, which is essentially identical to thepreviously filed securities class actions against the company.At least one other purchaser filed an identical complaint. Thecompany has not yet responded to the complaint.

SONUS NETWORKS: IPO Settlement Hearing Slated for April 24, 2006----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New Yorkset an April 24, 2006 fairness hearing for the proposedsettlement of securities class actions against Sonus Networks,Inc.

In November 2001, a purchaser of the company's common stockfiled a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York against the company, two of its officersand the lead underwriters alleging violations of the federalsecurities laws in connection with the company's initial publicoffering (IPO) and seeking unspecified monetary damages.

The purchaser sought to represent a class of persons whopurchased the company's common stock between the IPO on May 24,2000 and December 6, 2000. An amended complaint was filed inApril 2002.

The amended complaint alleged that the company's registrationstatement contained false or misleading information or omittedto state material facts concerning the alleged receipt ofundisclosed compensation by the underwriters and the existenceof undisclosed arrangements between underwriters and certainpurchasers to make additional purchases in the after market.

The claims against the company were asserted under Section 10(b)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 11 of theSecurities Act of 1933 and against the individual defendantsunder Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Other plaintiffs have filed substantially similar class actioncases against approximately 300 other publicly traded companiesand their IPO underwriters which, along with the actions againstthe company, have been transferred to a single federal judge forpurposes of coordinated case management.

On July 15, 2002, the company, together with the other issuersnamed as defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed acollective motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaintson various legal grounds common to all or most of the issuerdefendants. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the claimsagainst many of the individual defendants, including thecompany's officers named in the complaint.

On February 19, 2003, the court granted a portion of the motionto dismiss the Section 10(b) claims against certain defendantsincluding the company, but denied the remainder of the motion asto the defendants. In June 2003, a special committee of thecompany's board of directors authorized the company to enterinto a proposed settlement with the plaintiffs on termssubstantially consistent with the terms of a memorandum ofunderstanding negotiated among representatives of theplaintiffs, the issuer defendants and the insurers for theissuer defendants.

On February 15, 2005, the court preliminarily approved the termsof the proposed settlement contingent on modifications to theproposed settlement. On August 31, 2005, the court approved theterms of the proposed settlement, as modified.

The settlement is subject to class certification and finalapproval by the court. A hearing has been scheduled on April24, 2006 for final approval.

The proposed settlement would not require any settlement paymentby the company, therefore it does not expect that the settlementwould have a material impact on its business or financialresults.

SONUS NETWORKS: Mass. Court Mulls Motion for Attorneys' Fees------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts hasyet to rule on Sonus Networks, Inc.'s motion seeking therecovery of attorneys' fees from plaintiffs in the consolidatedsecurities class action filed against it.

Beginning in July 2002, several purchasers of the company'scommon stock filed complaints in the U.S. District Court for theDistrict of Massachusetts against the company, certain officersand directors and a former officer under Sections 10(b) and20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(Class Action Complaints).

The purchasers sought to represent a class of persons whopurchased the company's common stock between December 11, 2000and January 16, 2002, and seek unspecified monetary damages.The class action complaints were essentially identical andalleged that the company made false and misleading statementsabout its products and business.

On March 3, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amendedcomplaint. On April 22, 2003, the company filed a motion todismiss the consolidated amended complaint on various grounds.

On May 11, 2004, the court held oral argument on the motion, atthe conclusion of which the court denied the company's motion todismiss. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certificationon July 30, 2004.

On February 16, 2005, the court certified the class andappointed a class representative. On March 9, 2005, the courtappointed lead counsel.

After the court requested additional briefing on the adequacy ofthe class representative, the class representative withdrew.Lead counsel then filed a motion to substitute a new plaintiffas the class representative.

On May 19, 2005, the court held a hearing on the motion and tookthe matter under advisement. On August 15, 2005, the courtissued an order decertifying the class and requiring the partiesto submit a joint report informing the court whether the caseshave been settled and whether defendants would be seeking torecover attorney's fees from the plaintiffs.

On September 30, 2005, the plaintiffs filed motions tovoluntarily dismiss their complaints with prejudice. On October5, 2005, the court entered an order dismissing the cases.

On October 21, 2005, the defendants filed a motion seeking therecovery of attorneys' fees from plaintiffs. The plaintiffshave opposed the motion. No hearing date has been scheduled.

SONUS NETWORKS: Mass. Court Mulls Nixing of Amended Stock Suit--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts hasyet to rule on Sonus Networks, Inc.'s motion to dismiss theamended securities class action filed against it and certain ofits current officers and directors.

Beginning in February 2004, a number of purported shareholderclass action complaints were filed in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the District of Massachusetts against the company andcertain of its current officers and directors. On June 28,2004, the court consolidated the claims. On December 1, 2004,the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint.

The complaint asserted claims under the federal securities laws,specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Actof 1933, relating to the company's restatement of its financialresults for 2001, 2002, and the first three quarters of 2003.Specifically, the complaint alleged that the company issued aseries of false or misleading statements to the marketconcerning the company's revenues, earnings and financialcondition. Plaintiffs contended that such statements caused thecompany's stock price to be artificially inflated. Thecomplaint sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purportedclass of purchasers of the company's common stock during theperiod from March 28, 2002, through March 26, 2004.

On January 28, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss theSection 10(b) and 12(a) claims and joined the motion to dismissthe Section 11 claim filed by the individual defendants. OnJune 1, 2005, the court held a hearing on the motion and allowedthe plaintiff to file an amended complaint.

In August 2005, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. OnSeptember 12, 2005, the defendants filed motions to dismiss thisamended complaint. On December 10, 2005, the court held ahearing on the motions and took the matter under advisement.

The documents referred to are messages and directives sent byChief Executive Sol Trujillo from July 1, 2005, the day heassumed the post at Telstra.

About 100 Telstra shareholders are suing the company allegingbreach of stock exchange disclosure rules. They are representedby law firm Slater & Gordon. The suit claimed the company madeselective disclosures by first briefing the journalists and thegovernment, about its financial woes last year before informingthe Australian stock exchange. Telstra is 51.8% owned by thegovernment.

Judge Wilcox said any communications touching on the secretbriefing to the government should be given to the shareholders'lawyers. He also ordered that lawyers be given anycommunications between members of the company's transition team,which was deployed to help Mr. Trujillo in his new role. Thematter resumes May 12.

Telstra's stock closed at $5 on August 10, the day beforeresults were issued. It fell $0.18 on August 11, the day theresults were released to market. Weeks later, Telstra warnedprofits could fall by up to 10% in the year to June 2006 andthat it had underinvested in capital expenditures during theprevious three to five years.

Shareholders who bought Telstra shares between the release ofits annual results on Aug. 11 and the profit warning in the weekof Sept. 5 claimed they were overcharged for being kept in thedark about the firm's finances.

Slater and Gordon Spokesman Michael Salmon said early estimatesindicate shareholders were overcharged some AU$300 in the four-week period alone. The law firm said anyone who bought Telstrashares between Aug. 11 and Sept. 7 is eligible to join the suit.

Headquartered at Melbourne, in Victoria, Australia, TelstraCorporation -- http://www.telstra.com.au/-- is an Australian telecommunications and information services company. Telstraoffers a full range of services and compete in alltelecommunications markets throughout Australia, providing morethan 10.3 million Australian fixed line and more than 6.5million mobile services.

The depositors who lost as much as KES8.1 billion ($113.9million) from the bank's failure are suing 10 auditors of KPMGPeat Marwick for supposedly failing to disclose to thedepositors the true and correct financial position of the bankshortly before it went under.

The depositors are Tarlock Nandra, Mahendra Patel, Dinesh Shahand Tajdin Jiwa. They filed the suit in 2001 on behalf ofthemselves and 30,780 other depositors. Justice Aaron Ringera,then a High Court judge, had allowed the depositors to pursuethe case, but the auditors appealed in 2002. The auditors saidthe plaintiffs do not have the same interest in the suit, anddenied breaching statutory duties or committing fraud. Theauditors are:

The depositors are also accusing them of fraudulently alteringthe agreed terms of a scheme to revive the bank, and ofeffectively discharging shareholders of the collapsed fromrepaying KES2.6 billion ($36.576 million) that had beenembezzled from the bank.

The auditors drafted the company's 1999 scheme of arrangementwhen it was placed under statutory management that ultimatelyled to its liquidation.

USI HOLDINGS: Faces Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Suit in N.J.--------------------------------------------------------------USI Holdings Corporation is a defendant in multidistrictlitigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Districtof New Jersey.

The company was named as one of more than 30 insurance firms andinsurance brokerage defendants in an amended complaint filed inthe U.S. District Court Southern District of New York in aputative class action captioned, "Opticare Health Systems, Inc.v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. CV06954 (DC)."

The amended complaint focused on the payment of contingentcommissions by insurers to insurance brokers who sell theirinsurance and alleged bid rigging in the setting of insurancepremium levels. It purported to allege violations of numerouslaws including the Racketeer Influenced and CorruptOrganizations (RICO) and federal restraint of trade statutes,state restraint of trade, unfair and deceptive practicesstatutes and state breach of fiduciary duty and unjustenrichment laws.

The company was also named as a defendant in "copycat" or tag-along lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Illinois, styled, "Lewis v. Marsh & McLennanCompanies, Inc., et al., 04 C 7847," and "Preuss v. Marsh &McLennan Companies, Inc., et al., 04 C 7853."

In April 2005, the company was served in another copycat classaction, captioned, "Palm Tree Computers Systems, Inc. et al. v.Ace, USA, et al.," and filed in the Circuit Court for theEighteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County, Florida,Civil Division, Class Representation, No. 05-CA-373-16-W, withthe result that this action being removed to the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, CaseNo. 6:05-CV-422-2ZKRS.

A similar copycat class action complaint captioned, "BensleyConstruction, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. et al.,No. ESCV2005-0277 (Essex Superior Court, Massachusetts)" wasserved upon the company in May 2005. This action was removed tothe U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Like the Opticare complaint, these complaints contained noparticular allegations of wrongdoing on the company's part. InFebruary 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation(MDL) transferred the actions then pending to the U.S. DistrictCourt for the District of New Jersey for coordinated orconsolidated pretrial proceedings. The Judicial Panel onMultidistrict Litigation transferred the Palm Tree and Bensleylawsuits to the same court for the same purposes.

On August 1, 2005, in the multidistrict litigation pending inthe U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, theplaintiffs filed a first consolidated amended commercial classaction complaint and a first consolidated employee benefitsclass action complaint (the consolidated MDL complaints) thatalleged claims against the company based upon RICO, federal andstate antitrust laws, breach of fiduciary duty and aiding andabetting breaches of fiduciary and unjust enrichment.

The Consolidated MDL Complaints, like the predecessorcomplaints, focus the allegations of fact upon defendants otherthan the company. The company moved to dismiss the ConsolidatedMDL Complaints. None of the plaintiffs in any of the actionshas set forth the amounts being sought in the particularactions.

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Raises Alert on Diastat AcuDial Defects----------------------------------------------------------------Valeant Pharmaceuticals International and the U.S. Food and DrugAdministration notified healthcare professionals of complaintsthe company received concerning small cracks at the base of theplastic tip of its Diastat AcuDial Applicators. The companysaid the cracks result to leakage of the medication when theplunger is depressed, preventing full dosing and potentiallyresulting in a sub-optimal therapeutic response.

Diastat is indicated for rectal administration in the managementof selected refractory patients with epilepsy on stable regimensof anti-epileptic drugs, who require intermittent use ofdiazepam to control bouts of increased seizure activity.Complaints were received for the Diastat AcuDial Applicators 10mg. and 20 mg. product twin packs.

It is recommended that healthcare professionals advise patientsusing the product of this issue and to return any product with acracked tip to their pharmacy for immediate replacement.Pharmacists are advised to inspect all products on their shelvesand contact Rx Hope at 1-800-511-2120 or http://www.Rxhope.comfor replacement. Emergency support must be always be availablein case seizures are not controllable with Diastat AcuDial.

VIRGINIA: Suit Over DNA Testing by Police Awaits Possible Trial--------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge is considering whether to hear a lawsuit filedby a Charlottesville man who was subjected to DNA testing in thecity's hunt for a serial rapist.

Lawyers for Larry Monroe are planning to ask the judge for classstatus should the judge rules in favor of their client,according to Charlottesville NewsPLFX.

Late in March, attorneys for both the City of Charlottesvilleand Mr. Monroe delivered at a hearing statements on the questionof whether Charlottesville's General District Court rulingagainst Mr. Monroe should affect the federal complaint he filed.Mr. Monroe is bringing claims against Detective James Mooney,Chief Longo and the city of Charlottesville on behalf of himselfand other black men asked by police to submit to DNA testing inthe hunt (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 27, 2005).

The suit is the second filed by Mr. Monroe, who unsuccessfullysued Charlottesville police Detective James Mooney for $15,000last year, alleging that the detective harassed him into givinga sample because he is black, not because he fit the descriptionof the rapist, who has been forensically linked to at leastseven attacks between 1997 and 2004, The Daily Progress reports(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 27, 2005).

The first lawsuit, filed in July 2004, was dismissed in Februaryafter General District Judge Robert H. Downer Jr. ruled that Mr.Monroe consented to the search and Detective Mooney did notsearch him out of racial animosity. However, Mr. Monroe'slawyer, Deborah C. Wyatt, noted during the first case that therapist was described as a black man who is roughly 6 feet tallwith an athletic build, while Mr. Monroe is 5-foot-8 and weighsabout 300 pounds (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 27, 2005).

The practice of asking scores of black men for DNA samples wascurtailed in April 2004 after public outcry. The new suitalleges two violations of constitutional rights:

(1) the policy of asking Monroe and other black men to provide their DNA for tests violates their constitutional right to equal protection because the same policy wasn't applied to all white men after unsolved sexual assaults made by white assailants; and

(2) the policy constituted unreasonable seizures.

Filed last December 16, 2006 in U.S. District Court inCharlottesville, the suit contends, "All governmentclassifications based on race are subject to strict judicialscrutiny, including decisions regarding whom to speak with whenpolice are investigating a crime." It noted, "While race may bea factor in such decisions, it may not be the only factor."

Under class action rules, Mr. Monroe must get permission from ajudge to sue on behalf of others who have the same complaint.The current suit also seeks $15,000 in damages. If class actionstatus is approved, and if others join the suit, the same amountof compensation would be sought for each of the plaintiffs.

WILLIAM LYON: Stockholder Lawsuits in Calif., Del. Dismissed------------------------------------------------------------Two consolidated stockholder class actions challenging theproposal made by General William Lyon to acquire the outstandingpublicly held minority interest in William Lyon Homes' commonstock for $82 per share in cash were recently dismissed. Thesuits were filed in Delaware and California courts.

Five purported class actions were filed in the Court of Chanceryof the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County,purportedly on behalf of the public stockholders of the company,challenging the Proposed Transaction as well as related actionsof the company and its directors.

The Delaware complaints named the company and the directors ofthe company as defendants. These complaints alleged, amongother things, that the defendants had breached their fiduciaryduties owed to the plaintiffs in connection with the proposedtransaction and other related corporate activities.

The plaintiffs were seeking to enjoin the proposed transactionand, among other things, to obtain damages, attorneys' fees andexpenses related to the litigation.

On May 9, 2005, the Delaware Complaints were consolidated into asingle case entitled, "In re: William Lyon Homes ShareholderLitigation, Civil Action No. 1311-N" (the consolidated Delawareaction). On May 20, 2005, a class was certified in theConsolidated Delaware Action.

On November 9, 2005, the Consolidated Delaware action wasdismissed without prejudice.

In addition, two purported class actions challenging theProposed Transaction were also filed in the Superior Court ofthe State of California, County of Orange.

The California Complaints named the company and the directors ofthe company as defendants and alleged, among other things, thatthe defendants had breached their fiduciary duties to the publicstockholders.

The California Complaints sought to enjoin the ProposedTransaction and also sought damages and attorneys' fees andexpenses related to the litigation.

On May 26, 2005, the California Complaints were consolidatedinto a single case entitled, "In re: William Lyon Homes, Inc.Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 05-CC-00092" (the ConsolidatedCalifornia Action).

On July 8, 2005, plaintiffs in the Consolidated CaliforniaAction dismissed that lawsuit without prejudice.

On March 8, 2006, Pomerantz filed a class action against thecompany and certain of its officers, in the U.S. District Courtfor the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasersof the common stock of the company during the period from March9, 2005 to February 15, 2006, inclusive.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section20(a) of The Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. It also alleges thatbeginning in March 2005 through August 2005, CB&I consistentlyissued favorable press releases lauding the company's financialstrength, consistently reporting an increase in net income andshare value for the 2004 fiscal year and the first two quartersof 2005.

On May 10, 2005 the company filed its first quarter report withthe SEC on a Form 10-Q. Pursuant to section 302 of SarbanesOxley, the Form 10-Q contained signed certifications by thecompany's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officers.

On August 8, 2005, the company filed with the SEC its Form 10-Qfor the second quarter ended June 30, 2005. In the Form 10-Q,the company reiterated previously announced financial resultsand was signed by the chief financial officer.

In truth, statements issued by the defendants during the ClassPeriod were materially false and misleading when made becausedefendants failed to disclose that:

(1) the company was materially overstating its financial results by failing to properly utilize percentage-of completion accounting;

(2) the company failed to properly recognize revenue on two projects ;

(3) the company was not following its publicly stated revenue recognition policies;

(4) the company lacked adequate internal controls to ensure the accuracy of its reported financial results and guidance;

(5) the company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with GAAP; and

(6) that as a result, the company's guidance lacked any reasonable basis in fact.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a seriesof material misrepresentations to the market which had theeffect of artificially inflating the market price. The classperiod is from October 19, 2004 through March 24, 2006.

SEA CONTAINERS: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.---------------------------------------------------------------Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a lawsuit in the U.S.District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalfof persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly tradedsecurities of Sea Containers, Ltd. (NYSE:SCR-A) between March15, 2004 and March 24, 2006, inclusive. The lawsuit was filedagainst Sea Containers and certain officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that Sea Containers' stock price droppedsignificantly on March 24, 2006, after it disclosed that it wasrestating its financial statements to reflect a $500 millionwrite-down of the value of its ferry and container businesses.The complaint also alleges that, during the Class Period,insiders were well aware that these assets were materiallyimpaired, but failed to make the necessary timely financialadjustments, in order to satisfy its loan covenants as well askeep its share price artificially inflated.

SEA CONTAINERS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.Y.---------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP filed aclass action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of SeaContainers Ltd. (SCL) or the (NYSE: SCR-A), between March 15,2004 and March 24, 2006, inclusive, seeking to pursue remediesunder the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The action is pending in the U.S. District Court for theSouthern District of New York against defendants SCL, JamesSherwood (former CEO, President and Chair); Robert Mackenzie(CEO), Daniel J. O'Sullivan (former CFO) and Ian C. Durant(CFO).

The complaint alleges that SCL's Class Period financialstatements, disseminated in press releases and SEC filings, werematerially false and misleading because, among other things:

(1) the company had overvalued long-lived assets related to its ferry and container businesses by hundreds of millions of dollars;

(2) the company's reported earnings were materially overstated;

(3) the company's internal controls and procedures were deficient and its financial reports inherently unreliable;

(5) the company had overstated its gain on the sale of its interest in Orient-Express Hotels Ltd.

The truth emerged on March 24, 2006. On that date SCL disclosedthat it was completely quitting the ferry business, taking a$500 million charge, and that it was in talks to amend some ofits loan agreements.

The company further disclosed that it would restate its earningsfor 2005 and delay filing its annual reports with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission until April to allow time tofinalize bank negotiations and outstanding accounting issues.

On this news the company's share price dropped by 37.9 %, fromthe March 24, 2006 per share opening price of $12 to a closingprice of $7.45. During the Class Period, the company issued andsold, at artificially inflated prices, $103,000,000 aggregateprincipal amount of unsecured 101/2% senior notes due 2012 in anunderwritten public offering.

TNS INC: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. Va.----------------------------------------------------------------The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, initiated a securitiesclass action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the commonstock and other securities of TNS Inc. (NYSE: TNS) pursuant tothe company's secondary offering of common stock on or aboutSeptember 16, 2005. The class action was filed in the U.S.District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federalsecurities laws by issuing a series of materialmisrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,thereby artificially inflating the price of TNS securities. Noclass has yet been certified in the above action.

TNS INC: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. Va.----------------------------------------------------------------Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, initiated aclass action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern Districtof Virginia on behalf of those who purchased the common stock ofTNS, Inc. (NYSE:TNS), pursuant to the company's secondaryoffering of common stock on or about September 16, 2005.

The complaint charges TNS and certain of its officers anddirectors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. TNSdescribes itself as "one of the leading providers of business-critical, cost-effective data communications services fortransaction-oriented applications and operates through itswholly owned subsidiary Transaction Network Services, Inc.

The complaint alleges that, in connection with the SecondaryOffering, TNS filed a Registration Statement in which defendantsnegligently failed to disclose several "material changes" toTNS's continuing operations, which were required to bedisclosed. Specifically, the Registration Statement failed todisclose that:

(1) contrary to earlier statements, an agreement that the company had with the Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. (the Pepsi Contract) had been delayed beyond August 7, 2005;

(2) at the time of the Secondary Offering, TNS was generating less revenues and earnings than it had anticipated from its contract with the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS); and

(3) at the time of the Secondary Offering, the company's International Services Division was experiencing declining revenues because of unfavorable exchange rates.

On October 20, 2005, the company, in a press release andconference call, announced its financial results for the thirdquarter of 2005 and noted that it had missed its top-linerevenue guidance because of delays in the company's PepsiContract, the impact of unfavorable exchange rates and areduction in transaction volume from RBS.

Following this announcement, shares of TNS common stock fell25%. Then, on February 22, 2006, the company reported decliningfinancial results for the fourth quarter of 2005 and attributedthe decline to a further delay associated with the PepsiContract and the continued impact of unfavorable exchange rates.Shares of TNS common stock declined an additional 19% inresponse to this announcement.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of those whopurchased the common stock of TNS, pursuant to the SecondaryOffering on or about September 16, 2005 (the Class). Theplaintiff is represented by Lerach Coughlin, which has expertisein prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experiencein actions involving financial improprieties.

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in eachWednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissionsvia e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuringnews on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of targetasbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-relatedliabilities.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited withoutprior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believedto be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contact ChristopherBeard at 240/629-3300.